[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140801171551.GG8181@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 22:45:52 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Antoine Ténart <antoine@...e-electrons.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas@...e-electrons.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris@...e-electrons.com>,
Matt Porter <matt.porter@...aro.org>,
laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, ludovic.desroches@...el.com,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: dmaengine: Add a documentation for the
dma controller API
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:57:07AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:00:10AM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> > On 07/31/2014 07:37 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:54:11PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> > >>On 07/31/2014 06:13 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >>[...]
> > >>> From what you're saying, and judging from the drivers that already
> > >>>implement it, can't it be moved directly to the framework itself ?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>What exactly do you mean by moving it directly to the framework? The
> > >>slave_caps API is part of the DMAengine framework.
> > >
> > >Not its implementation, which is defined by each and every driver,
> > >while the behaviour of device_slave_caps is rather generic.
> > >
> >
> > Do you mean something like adding a dma_slave_caps struct field to
> > the DMA channel that gets initialized when the channel is created
> > and then remove the callback? That makes some sense.
>
> I was rather thinking into something like:
> - Splitting device_control into independant functions
I like this part :)
> - Then, knowing if you support pause/resume/terminate is trivial:
> either you implement the callback, or you don't
> - Putting the supported width and direction into fields of struct
> dma_device, which can eventually be used by the framework to
> filter out invalid configurations before calling the relevant
> callbacks
thats is a good idea
> - That would then be trivial to get from the framework, without
> calling any callback
Yes please
--
~Vinod
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists